Mir Development Stats Dominated By Canonical

[mrugiero]

I was referring to what Michael wrote in the actual 'article':

"When using CLOC to analyze the source-tree, there's some stats about the lines of code and files."

"When counting code of all different languages, there's a total of 118,008 lines of code in total -- including code comments, etc."

As I said I found it strange that Michael reported comments along with code, particularly as I recall CLOC (which he states he used) presented actual code separately from comments (and blank lines), although my memory may fail me here.

Your memory is not failing. Since I didn't know about CLOC, I had to google it, and in its description it clearly states that it does present code, comments and blank lines separately.

[XorEaxEax]

No, Ohloh count comments separately from lines of code and whitespace. Mir has 160k lines of actual code, Wayland has 12k, Weston has 53k.

I was referring to what Michael wrote in the actual 'article':

"When using CLOC to analyze the source-tree, there's some stats about the lines of code and files."

"When counting code of all different languages, there's a total of 118,008 lines of code in total -- including code comments, etc."

As I said I found it strange that Michael reported comments along with code, particularly as I recall CLOC (which he states he used) presented actual code separately from comments (and blank lines), although my memory may fail me here.

[mrugiero]

here is the blog post http://mer-project.blogspot.fi/2013/...u-drivers.html

and the quote from the dev himself

"Earlier this year however, I discovered that a well-known company had taken the code - disappeared underground with it for several months, improved upon it, utilized the capability in their advertisements and demos and in the end posted the code utilizing their own source control system, detached from any state of that of the upstream project's. Even to the extent some posters around the web thought libhybris was done by that company itself."

Well, I did thought that. And I probably had read about that before, just I didn't pay attention because I don't care that much about Android.

No, Ohloh count comments separately from lines of code and whitespace. Mir has 160k lines of actual code, Wayland has 12k, Weston has 53k.

But the other poster explicitly asked about CLOC, not Ohloh :P

Reuse of libhybris (compatibility with android drivers). for xMir xWayland, couldn't find reliable source, and too complicated to compare code myself.

Thanks, as I answered to another post, I thought it was the other way around.

No. A lot of times it's faster to just go do your thing than try to convince others of your POV.

Maybe, but usually you first check if they share your POV, first.

[mrugiero]

well to extend a bit in this topic wayland is not a server at all and it can't be not just because it doesn't draw, as a reference X.Org doesn't necessarily draw either[unless you use motif directly <-- insanity].

so what make an protocol like Mir and X11 server type? well, with either of this two Mir and/or X.org are global processes that handle the interaction between GPU[positioning/input/referencing/rendering/surfaces/subsurfaces/etc] and the clients, this means and X.org or Mir application can't access the framebuffer of the GPU directly, they have to request the operation to this global middleman in between and this apply to the compositors too, they have to request and process the framebuffer to this middleman talking an API this middleman can understand, so the middleman later can render the completed frame.

I thought this part was already clear. As I said in my previous post, I just recalled correctly because a compositor, which as you point out later in this post isn't Wayland, *can* be implemented as a server.

what make Mir different from X.org? well basically Mir trimmed all the fat of the X11 protocol and try to be a less intrusive middleman allowing you more freedom in the render process, in theory Mir can be atomic and properly threaded too[TODO for now] and uses EGL instead the GLX mammut but still is a global process middleman that you have to request operations even so you have to do lot less roundtrips than you would with X11.[you can confirm this checking their own examples and looking at your process table]

I don't know where do you get this part from, I tried to find specific info about how Mir renders but had no success. I haven't much time today to check it out, but other days what I found as a 'spec' was Canonical's fuzz words.

so, why wayland is not a server then? keeping your words wayland is more close to an OpenGL for Framebuffer management than to X.org or Mir. let see it this way, you can do everything wayland does using pure EGL/OpenGL or even GPU ASM, is not a big deal at all and the performance advantage is nasty but if everyone do this their own way basically would be a hell of a mess that will force you to use 1 computer per application, so all christian did was think of an standard library that can send this object directly from the application to the GPU in an standarized fashion so we can all use it. So yes that it is wayland is nothing more that a library of premade objects that you can send to a GPU to do window surface operations directly.

Yes, I was aware.

so why wayland need a compositor? it doesn't need one at all and is not part of the spec either

Here you lost me. Isn't all of this pointless without a system compositor?

so what is a wayland compositor? put simply a client or application that other applications that use the wayland protocol register objects with, so it can keep a global idea of how the framebuffer is looking in a given period of time and do operations with that information[change a surface position for example or add eye candy], in resume a compositor is a good added value but is not necessary

in which god's case i would not use a compositor? full screen games or any type of full screen application, yeap just create a surface that match the entire display size then render something into it and swap it, 100% GPU dedicated to your APP like magic

Wouldn't you need to at least let the compositor know you will have fullscreen and need to be on top?

so how wayland/client relate? you app using the wayland protocol create an usable surface, then your app draw something in that surface using any API you like[OpenGL, OpenVG, GPU ASM, Pixman, etc] then your app inform the compositor it have an valid surface at X,Y,Z[in case is not fullscreen] and the compositor simply re render a surface as big as the screen[that include your app and other apps surfaces] and post-process it to give you a final surface composited from all other subsurface

so in resume when your app is linked to libwayland your app not wayland send packages of operation directly to the GPU, use wayland isn't any different than use a let say a jabber protocol library or libtorrent protocol library, in perfect english everything is on you because wayland do absolutely nothing at all beyond provide you with premade operations to start a valid surface in the GPU[ofc if you use tollkits like Qt or Gtk they do the heavy lifting]

Yes, I was aware of that. My only misconception was about Wayland implemented as a server. As I said, I want to port a pet project to Wayland, so I read a bit about that.

i hope is more clear[and obviously is very simplified], about been polite is hard sometime when you explain the same thing in 200 different post and ppl still come and say "Lulz wayland don't minimize" or any other barbaric assumption without properly investigate before hand

I know that feel, but when you are impolite you just feed the idea your position is based on ignorance, since it looks like you lose your temper because you got out of arguments.
Anyway, thanks for the brief explanation, it could be useful to make some kind of tutorial, so you don't have to put it into words every time but just link to it.

[uid313]

No surprise

Canonical doesn't even want any third-party developers, they just want it developed in-house by themselves.

Not very community spirit!

[MartinN]

No. A lot of times it's faster to just go do your thing than try to convince others of your POV.

Canonical was convinced of Wayland's merit for a while, Boss. Then they backpedaled.

Let's hope their wannabe-Apple attitude is going to pay off.

[jrch2k8]

No. A lot of times it's faster to just go do your thing than try to convince others of your POV.

well this is relative and in this case could backfire, the good thing is only canonical will use Mir for the midterm and only unity will have support for it, so if things goes south they can switch to wayland quite easy.

the issues here is that mir is not another mp3 player or another mail client but a very complex part of the entire stack that could help your vision in the short term but since everyone else will support only wayland for quite sometime it can become a hell to maintain in the long term since ubuntu will have to maintain their QPA plugin and Mesa patches including any other linux app Qt or Gtk that will support wayland only.

another thing we can expect is canonical to cut from ubuntu every open app[except for server apps] and create their own mir apps prolly using a very high level set of tools like mono and so detach themselves from the FOSS world and became their own project which would save them a huge amount of porting and maintaining and get rid of any license issue that could happen with their store

[jrch2k8]

here is the blog post http://mer-project.blogspot.fi/2013/...u-drivers.html

and the quote from the dev himself

"Earlier this year however, I discovered that a well-known company had taken the code - disappeared underground with it for several months, improved upon it, utilized the capability in their advertisements and demos and in the end posted the code utilizing their own source control system, detached from any state of that of the upstream project's. Even to the extent some posters around the web thought libhybris was done by that company itself."

[jrch2k8]

Reuse of libhybris (compatibility with android drivers). for xMir xWayland, couldn't find reliable source, and too complicated to compare code myself.

well the author of libhybris got very vocal some weeks ago because canonical in their original presentation make it look like it was theirs but in reality he made it for wayland and canonical fork it to adapt it to Mir[like they did to XWayland/Xmir], here is a repost in G+ https://plus.google.com/113386402913...ts/9LF6atjc455 from carsten munk, as you see the date predate by far Mir. if i find the discussion ill post it later

[jrch2k8]

I have no idea why you're quoting me, of all things. My point was that Mir did not accelerate the development process of Wayland.

probably misunderstand, i apologize

and yeap you are right Mir have nothing with wayland development speed, just maybe more publicity